Last Friday, Apple and Google reportedly agreed to dismiss all current lawsuits between them, including standard essential patent cases involving Motorola Mobility that Google recently sold to Lenovo. The three-sentence joint statement by Apple and Google indicates that their agreement does not include any cross license (to SEPs or otherwise), stating:
Apple and Google have agreed to dismiss all the current lawsuits that exist directly between the two companies. Apple and Google have also agreed to work together in some areas of patent reform. The agreement does not include a cross license.
Dismiss Judge Posner Appeal. Thus the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss The Appealfrom Judge Posner’s decision in which a Federal Circuit panel recently ruled there is no per se rule against injunctive relief for standard essential patents (see our April 25, 2014 post). Procedurally, the joint motion asks the Federal Circuit to issue the mandate on its recent decision so that jurisdiction of the case will return to the district court where the parties will then seek dismissal without prejudice, stating:
Whereas all parties agree that it would be appropriate to dismiss this litigation without prejudice, and whereas none of the parties intend, therefore, to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc or for writ of certiorari, Plaintffs-Appellants Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. (formerly known as NeXT Computer, Inc.), together with Defendants-Cross Appellants Motorola, Inc. (now known as Motorola Solutions, Inc.) and Motorola Mobility , Inc. (now know as Motorola Mobility LLC), respectfully move the Court to issue the mandate in these consolidated appeals, so that the parties can proceed to the district court to dismiss the litigation without prejudice. The parties further agree that each party will bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Dismiss Judge Crabb Appeal. The parties also filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss The Appeals from Judge Crabb’s decision that had dismissed Apple’s declaratory judgment action against Motorola because Apple would not commit to be bound by the court’s determination of a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) royalty rate (see, e.g., our Jan. 13, 2014 post). Procedurally, Judge Crabb had dismissed the case without prejudice and there had been no decision yet on appeal (briefed, but not yet argued), so the joint motion simply seeks dismissal, stating:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), Plaintiff Appellant Apple Inc. and Defendant-Cross Appellant Motorola Mobility LLC jointly move to dismiss these appeals (Nos. 2013-1150 and -1182). The parties will each bear their own costs and fees.
And so yet another standard essential patent skirmish goes gently into that good night … (see our May 15, 2014 post).